Silverdream wrote:Shut your whore mouth, Great Britain is the greatest country ever. At it's height, the USA had hedgemony over half of the world(Ender's Game). The Holy Britannian Empire at it's height controlled two-thirds of the entire earth(Code Geass).

Yes, but in 1984 Great Britain is controlled by Oceania, which is basically the dystopian future US.

Are there any restrictions about the size of the army, I mean, is there a cp system? I guess that depends on the opponent. Oh, and a big mega-battle where various forces would unite against each other (fantasy and scifi separately and/or united) would be AWESOME. Should take a picture of your own forces though. Some jerk (like me) may try to steal your lego after a battle (when you try to find a separated head of one of your guys).

Not decided on that one. I want to use the 2010 rules, but they are incomplete, and it would be confusing for newbies if they had to learn two similar-but-slightly-different books. Then again, it would also be bad to teach them the 2005 rules when the 2010 rules are just about to come out.

If the 2010 rules got released already I wouldn't have this problem... *wink wink nudge nudge*

Remus: Harry... I'm a werewolf.
Harry: Are you fucking serious?
Remus: Well yes, but I don't see how that applies here.

Arkbrik wrote:Not decided on that one. I want to use the 2010 rules, but they are incomplete, and it would be confusing for newbies if they had to learn two similar-but-slightly-different books. Then again, it would also be bad to teach them the 2005 rules when the 2010 rules are just about to come out.

If the 2010 rules got released already I wouldn't have this problem... *wink wink nudge nudge*

2005, with the 2010 fire and machine-gun rules as supplements. The new armor rules suck and I will never agree to use them.

I don't like them because they give to me, the impression that I don't even stand a chance against armored units. One die is just automatically removed, and I don't like that idea.

One of the charming things about the old ruleset was that I could do such stupid but funny things like have a group of spearman gang up on a tank. It gave factions of all time periods and genres a chance to fight on an equal footing- yes, it was unrealistic, but if I wanted a realistic game I could just play Warhammer 40k.

Now, I have to bring in tank and dreadnuts just to reliably kill an armored minifig, dakka better spent on actual dreadnuts and tanks- most minifigs don't even get to attack the armored minifig. And even if one minifig does manage to Overskill, probably one dude in a squad, what's the guarantee his Overskill die will kill the armored unit?

And what recourse is there for medieval battles, where armor is much more common? They might have the occasional size 2 ballista or catapult, but normal castlemen (ie not wizards and heros) can do almost nothing against mounted knights,. By the time they roll enough Overskill die, the armored units will have killed them all.

This can all be avoided, of course, by avoiding or disabling them, by the rulebook's suggestion. Seriously, stub hawk? Where's the violence or destruction in that? I play brikwars to kill and blow crap up, not play cult and mouse and knock him over for a turn when he catches up.

I rest my case- of course it's your ruleset so I have no right to coerce you to do something you don't want. Besides, the ultimate solution to the armored question in any case are What I Say Goes and heroic feats.

So what you're saying is that you don't like facing a tough enemy? I understand it's strictly a personal opinion, but it sounds dumb to not use a rule because you don't know how to prioritize your targets.

Why not use the rules for attacking a smaller target to chop off the legs or head of the armored figure? Or combine your dudes to form a Squad and use their combined several dice of damage to defeat it?